I confused the posts for membership, and the members for active members. This forum is useless. A forum this old, and it has 1696 members of which only 42 are active. You all are like the Branch Davidians!

Now, I get it, forums aren't used much, mine is really just what I'm using instead of a blog, but who drove this ancient forum into the ground? Why not just shut it down?

Hey ego centric

I'm still waiting for proof that I've been a member of this forum for years.

Judge, you over-estimate your atheist parishioners. For YOU it may be about science. You're like the old-school atheist. For everyone else, especially in this forum, you get raw under-educated emotions. Nothing more. They don't give a shit about science; they can't understand it anyway. They FOLLOW.

If Christopher Hitchens tells them to (or told them), or Richard Dawkins tells them to strap on dynamite and detonate in the middle of a nativity scene at the local VFW--they're going to do it!

And your old-school, philosopher-atheist shit is over for them. It didn't work; it didn't persuade, not ultimately anyway, and once communism failed, the big bang got usurped by the the theists, and evolution never proved how a cell formed, that was it. Go be a doctor, treat illness, be an engineer, build a bridge, run for office, whatever, the new atheism is just about the desire to be rude, anti-social, and act intellectually superior to superstitious Catholic mountain villagers in Brazil. That's it.

Besides, all this anti-Christian shtick totally fell apart when we saw what Islam was all about with ISIS. Now, everyone wants a Christian with a gun for a neighbor--internationally speaking.

Judge, you over-estimate your atheist parishioners. For YOU it may be about science. You're like the old-school atheist. For everyone else, especially in this forum, you get raw under-educated emotions. Nothing more. They don't give a shit about science; they can't understand it anyway. They FOLLOW.

If Christopher Hitchens tells them to (or told them), or Richard Dawkins tells them to strap on dynamite and detonate in the middle of a nativity scene at the local VFW--they're going to do it!

And your old-school, philosopher-atheist shit is over for them. It didn't work; it didn't persuade, not ultimately anyway, and once communism failed, the big bang got usurped by the the theists, and evolution never proved how a cell formed, that was it. Go be a doctor, treat illness, be an engineer, build a bridge, run for office, whatever, the new atheism is just about the desire to be rude, anti-social, and act intellectually superior to superstitious Catholic mountain villagers in Brazil. That's it.

Besides, all this anti-Christian shtick totally fell apart when we saw what Islam was all about with ISIS. Now, everyone wants a Christian with a gun for a neighbor--internationally speaking.

Whilst ego centric is here, his village is missing its idiot, that's for sure.

Judge, you over-estimate your atheist parishioners. For YOU it may be about science. You're like the old-school atheist. For everyone else, especially in this forum, you get raw under-educated emotions. Nothing more. They don't give a shit about science; they can't understand it anyway. They FOLLOW.

Maybe they're just tired of the same old arguments. Admittedly much has changed here since the early days but I'm enjoying being back.

Quote:

Egor wrote

If Christopher Hitchens tells them to (or told them), or Richard Dawkins tells them to strap on dynamite and detonate in the middle of a nativity scene at the local VFW--they're going to do it!

Of course, this is bullshit. For one Hitch would never have said such an absurd thing. He'd have lost a lot of credibility if he had.

Quote:

Egor wrote

And your old-school, philosopher-atheist shit is over for them. It didn't work; it didn't persuade, not ultimately anyway,

Whether it did or didn't the growth of unaffiliated / non-spiritual / atheists / "Nones" has grown certainly in the UK and in the US in recent years. Did this play a part? Possibly but there are arguably many other factors at play to effect such a shift in tides.

Quote:

Egor wrote

...and once communism failed, the big bang got usurped by the the theists,

Bit of a non-sequiter here

Quote:

Egor wrote

...and evolution never proved how a cell formed,

It never tried to.

Quote:

Egor wrote

...the new atheism is just about the desire to be rude, anti-social, and act intellectually superior to superstitious Catholic mountain villagers in Brazil.

This is so specific I'm really not sure where it's come from

Quote:

Egor wrote

Besides, all this anti-Christian shtick totally fell apart when we saw what Islam was all about with ISIS. Now, everyone wants a Christian with a gun for a neighbor--internationally speaking.

LOL this is not the case, although I know you wish it were as it would give you a big sense of much needed validation I'm sure.

Judge, you over-estimate your atheist parishioners. For YOU it may be about science. You're like the old-school atheist. For everyone else, especially in this forum, you get raw under-educated emotions.

Perhaps we're fed up with the unsupported bullshit that we've heard for decades?

Quote:

..... They don't give a shit about science; they can't understand it anyway. They FOLLOW.

Do tell us which bits of the scientific method none of us understand.

Quote:

If Christopher Hitchens tells them to (or told them), or Richard Dawkins tells them to strap on dynamite and detonate in the middle of a nativity scene at the local VFW--they're going to do it!

Look up shit-stirring troll and report back. Jerk

Quote:

.... once communism failed, the big bang got usurped by the the theists,

I've never smoked, so you'll have to let me know what you've been drinking.

Quote:

and evolution never proved how a cell formed,

It never set out to - look up abiogenesis.

Quote:

... the new atheism is just about the desire to be rude, anti-social, and act intellectually superior to superstitious Catholic mountain villagers in Brazil.

It's a bit much to expect high quality discussion given the three current theist here.

Firstly there is JJ who would most likely prefer us to forget that he came here pretending to be a catholic school girl called Mary, for the sole purpose to troll, insult and denigrate atheism. Lately he has been trying dismally for some maturity and higher moral ground even quoting fucking bible passages at us. When it comes to his personal life and claims he is about as believable as Donald Trump.

Then there is EgoBore who has brought the same predictable show to town two or three times. It's alway the same mixture of christianity and woo delivered with signature narcissism and arrogance and which inevitably ends in tears (his).

And finally Andy66 who has been coming here at regular intervals for years trying to jam his square peg into a round hole. He comes with naive homespun theories to justify his beliefs but totally ignores us when his ultra-frequent mistakes and fallacies are pointed out then inevitably claims victory once he has been backed into a corner. If anything I have most sympathy for Andy whose awful hillbilly-homeskooling leaves him totally inadequate in any sort of debating environment.

There you go, this is the awfully below average state of play by the visiting side.

It's a bit much to expect high quality discussion given the three current theist here.

Firstly there is JJ who would most likely prefer us to forget that he came here pretending to be a catholic school girl called Mary, for the sole purpose to troll, insult and denigrate atheism. Lately he has been trying dismally for some maturity and higher moral ground even quoting fucking bible passages at us. When it comes to his personal life and claims he is about as believable as Donald Trump.

Then there is EgoBore who has brought the same predictable show to town two or three times. It's alway the same mixture of christianity and woo delivered with signature narcissism and arrogance and which inevitably ends in tears (his).

And finally Andy66 who has been coming here at regular intervals for years trying to jam his square peg into a round hole. He comes with naive homespun theories to justify his beliefs but totally ignores us when his ultra-frequent mistakes and fallacies are pointed out then inevitably claims victory once he has been backed into a corner. If anything I have most sympathy for Andy whose awful hillbilly-homeskooling leaves him totally inadequate in any sort of debating environment.

There you go, this is the awfully below average state of play by the visiting side.

People like jerrypong and android aren't a problem. android is a fool that can be easily dismissed. He can be easily beaten in an argument and has little to say anyhoo. jerrypong is a typical fire and brimstone baptist with nothing new to say.

The worrying joker in the pack is ego centric. He acquires knowledge and then spins it in a way that makes it sound believable and interesting. To realise it's complete and utter shit requires one to be knowledgeable and critical and that's in short supply these days.

In his latest 'theory', he takes certain behaviours in paramecium, a mono-cellular entity found in pond water, and claims that it uses consciousness, even though it clearly has no brain. He therefore additionally claims that consciousness requires no brain.

Fact: The behaviours in paramecium that are referred to by ego are not clearly understood by science (yet).

ego attributes them to consciousness in a way which is believable if one lacked a reasonably high-level of knowledge, particularly in this area of science, or was particularly gullible.

I've seen some spectacular sunrises and sunsets in my time. They are caused by nothing more mundane than refraction and atmospheric dust. The most spectacular sometimes have the most mundane of causes.

ego centric, does the reverse in his observation of the mundane behaviour of paramecium and seeks out spectacular causes. In this case, he seeks to convince us that paramecium has consciousness and that consciousness requires no brain given that paramecium clearly has no brain, it being a mono-cellular entity.

Whether he has considered more mundane causes or even accepts this possibility, is unclear. However, I can see some people falling for his crap because it is interesting and he makes it sound plausible.

In addition, he offers no other alternative and more mundane explanations. He only offers the spectacular.

Judge, you over-estimate your atheist parishioners. For YOU it may be about science. You're like the old-school atheist. For everyone else, especially in this forum, you get raw under-educated emotions. Nothing more. They don't give a shit about science; they can't understand it anyway. They FOLLOW.

If Christopher Hitchens tells them to (or told them), or Richard Dawkins tells them to strap on dynamite and detonate in the middle of a nativity scene at the local VFW--they're going to do it!

And your old-school, philosopher-atheist shit is over for them. It didn't work; it didn't persuade, not ultimately anyway, and once communism failed, the big bang got usurped by the the theists, and evolution never proved how a cell formed, that was it. Go be a doctor, treat illness, be an engineer, build a bridge, run for office, whatever, the new atheism is just about the desire to be rude, anti-social, and act intellectually superior to superstitious Catholic mountain villagers in Brazil. That's it.

Besides, all this anti-Christian shtick totally fell apart when we saw what Islam was all about with ISIS. Now, everyone wants a Christian with a gun for a neighbor--internationally speaking.

I've been to your website and read your 'theories', such as they are.

My conclusion?

Piss-poor 'science' from a piss-poor 'scientist'.

Your 'theory' that paramecium has consciousness is extremely highly speculative to say the least. You provide no supporting evidence whatsoever except some observed behaviour which could, amongst other reasons, be caused by a chemical gradient which affects paramecium's cilium. Did you even consider this possibility? Did you investigate this possibility before dismissing it? Did you consider other more realistic causes before coming up with your consciousness 'theory'?

Your 'theory' that paramecium has consciousness is extremely highly speculative to say the least. You provide no supporting evidence whatsoever except some observed behaviour which could, amongst other reasons, be caused by a chemical gradient which affects paramecium's cilium. Did you even consider this possibility? Did you investigate this possibility before dismissing it? Did you consider other more realistic causes before coming up with your consciousness 'theory'?

Yours is bad 'science' and you are a bad 'scientist'.

Appropriate use of quotation marks, Hertz. I saw him getting his arse kicked on his website by The Judge. He should stay away from this stuff and stick to being a registered nurse and taking care of people in hospital. WAIT! What am I saying?!!!